[Quoted from JimLab] - He has also passed emissions with full catalytic converters, has all accessories, gets far better gas mileage, and will never have to worry about his engine deciding to cough an apex seal out the exhaust port again. Sounds like a real idiot to me, too.

No flames here but, what of these stated items can a rotary motor not do? Passing emissions = maintaining your car properly (not rotary specific); I have all of my accessories; getting good gas mileage = a light right foot in any auto; and as far as an apex seal goes...I'd gander a thought into the direction of tuning and thought into a rotary engine before someone starts throwing modifications at it left and right. After all, there are people out there running big boost with the stock apex seals...

 

I like the idea of more torque out of slow corners, and no turbo lag. If I were to do the swap i would wait for a 2002 Z06 corvette to show up at an insurance salvage: 405 hp, 400 ft torque, . Best of all, an all aluminum block and heads V8. No expensive intercooler, computer , new motor parts, new turbo(s). I doubt it would add any weight to an rx7.
But for now i'm gonna see what the single turbo will do since i have it.

Wouter

 

Can we just take all the old monthly V8 threads and make one 'Super V8' thread and make it sticky up top so all the new guys can read it?

 

No, just facts. If you knew anything at all about drag racing, you would have reached the same conclusions without having to have them pointed out to you.

 

There are no modern era manual trannies with the Buick-Olds-Pontiac bolt pattern. You're pretty much stuck with a 200R4 4 speed auto trans.

 

Intake, downpipe, midpipe, cat-back, reprogrammed ECU, 12+ psi, big intercoolers, Crane HI-6s. And in one case, a ported motor.

That's not exactly stock, is it? Were your tires stock also?

That 60-foot time is excellent, assuming you were on street tires, but I'm betting you weren't. Try to pull off a low/mid 12 on street tires and then tell me how easy it is.

Bingo. Or a driver with very little experience. The RX-7 Forum's own Jason Baughman ran a 12.8 with a very heavily modified car. Was it sick or was he having traction problems, or was it his first day at the track? (hint: first day at the track)

Stephen, I'm sure you drive very well, but one example doesn't mean much to the average. On average, all of the magazines posted very high 13s or low 14s for the quarter mile with a *stock* FD. On average, most of the stock FDs I've seen have run even slower, because the magazines have experienced test drivers. On average, most of the modified FDs I've seen have failed to break 13.5. And one single turbo car failed to break into the 12s... a 13.1 was the best I saw him pull off for that day.

It's not as easy as it looks, which some people will never understand until they try it for themselves. They believe it should be simple because A) someone else has the same mods and got great numbers, B) it's just a straight line acceleration test, how difficult could it be? and C) they've got X mods and that should be good for Y horsepower, and the formulas indicate that they should be capable of Z elapsed time. It's not that easy. Especially on street tires.

What'd be funny is to get JoeD to the track and see how god-awful quick he can get down the quarter mile. After all, he's an expert.

 

I've been drag racing since I had a license, and I'm hardly ever able to get a car down the track as quick as it should. I just can't shift for ****. I can nail the tree (consitent .5xx on a Sportsman tree) and had decent 60' (2.1x in a shitty *** NA FC). The only car I had that was fast enough was my Z28 that was automatic. and FWIW, it ran low 13's, so I've never driven a 12 second car. I can imagine its hard.

 

And keeping all your emissions equipment, something most FD owners don't do because it inhibits boost level and response.

In regards to accessories, it's nothing very extraordinary that you still have yours. For someone with a big, heavy (using words I've heard thrown about in threads like this one) V8, it is because it's all extra weight. Not only did Bill keep all his A/C and power steering, but he also has the stock LT1 cast iron exhaust manifolds and catalytic converters, all extra weight. And his car is STILL not much heavier than stock.

His car weighed in at 3,000 lbs. (on a digital truck scale) with an extra 100 lbs. of ballast in the spare tire well. 2,900 lbs. (without the ballast... perfect 50/50 weight balance is overrated as a necessity for performance driving...) isn't much heavier than a stock Touring with manual transmission at 2,862 lbs. An A4 Touring is 2,923 lbs. The R1 is 2,800, an A4 Base model is 2,857, and the manual Base model is 2,789 lbs., according to Mazda. Now that's impressive.

If Bill just dumped the exhaust manifolds, and didn't care about emissions, (like most RX-7 owners) he'd not only make around 40 or more extra horsepower with a good set of headers and no catalytic converters, but he'd also easily drop 35-50 lbs. of curb weight.

Good gas mileage is relative. When was the last time you averaged 27 mpg for a trip? Most of the FD owners I know of get 13-17 mpg regardless of how heavy their foot is. 19-21 mpg is great highway mileage for a 13B-REW, and many don't even get that much. The rotary engine is horribly fuel inefficient for its displacement. It gulps about as much fuel as a 488 cubic inch Viper V10. (11/21 rated)

There sure are. And many of them will replace or have replaced engines. Even with engines built by or cars tuned by major tuners. Even well-known tuners can't guarantee you long engine life. PFS. Pettit. Tri-Point. I know of owners who have single turbo or high boost stock twin cars and the majority of them who have made 340-360+ RWHP have replaced at least one engine, some two or more. I know one owner who had an engine go on him at stock boost. It was tuned by Mandeville with a Motec ECU... he's looking into a V8 swap now because he just wants to autocross and not worry about his fragile engine any longer.

Some people just don't want the hassle or the "joys" of rotary ownership any longer, but still like the car, for whatever reason. What skin is it off your (or anyone's) back if they want to put a V8 in the car? If you believe in rotary heritage, you keep the torch burning. Some of us could care less, apparently. We'd rather just drive our cars and not have to consult astrological star charts to find out whether or not they'll still be running at the end of the day.

 

I think Max Cooper just popped his engine, and I don't think anyone here (that is familiar with him) will accuse him of just 'throwing' mods at it. It sucks, and it happens.

Some people do not want to deal with that anymore, and they seek alternatives. If it's done with taste and attention to detail like Jim's car, I have no problems with it.

I'm personally going to keep mine a rotary as that I think its a mechanically unique aspect of the car I like - not because I think that it gets me into some exclusive club that allows me to bash Honda owners or any poor soul that ventures onto this Forum with little rotary knowledge and a few questions .... or those that choose to swap the rotary for a boinger...

 

how does not knowing personal facts of the guy and his car have anything to do with not knowing about drag racing? i was not presented the information that it was the guy's first time at the track, etc. , before you stepped in. you've said some smart things before Jim, but his was not one of the brightest.

 

Because you've made pronouncements and snap judgements before that indicate to me that you don't know that much about drag racing, and this was yet another example.

Anyone knowledgable about drag racing should be able to draw the conclusion that a 2.1 60 foot time with a manual car is the result of poor traction or driver inexperience or both. In addition, based on what that engine was capable of in a 3,400 lb. Corvette, I'd conclude that Bill's car has further potential in it, indicating again that he is not an experienced driver.

Even if I didn't know it was his first day at the track, I would still have arrived at these conclusions because I have data about the car, including horsepower and weight, and I know what it should be reasonably capable of in the quarter mile because of experience.

All of that information is (and has been for 6+ months now) posted on Granny's site, and it's been mentioned before in a thread in which you commented on it, I believe. You plead ignorance of the details now, but that didn't stop you from making a judgement on the validity of the V8 swap based on one single piece of data... E.T. in the quarter mile. Should you be making assumptions based on only one piece of data?

 

V8 RX-7 conversions don't work.........


...... only Turbo V6 (Buick GN) RX-7 conversions work! ha ha ha

Plus they get good gas mileage, could run 10's on pump gas and alchy injection, and can blow the tires away at 50mph.... he he he. Ever seen a moving brakestand at 60mph on the freeway..... I accidently did a few and the guy next to me in that loud 'Stang or modified Supra and RX-7 about dropped their jaws! We did tango a little.... but after pulling away from them so fast they didn't want to play. 4:10's, 2700lbs, and 450ft/lbs tq + must have done the trick.

JIMLAB- get your car done man... and show these guys why you are doing what you are doing..... I too look forward to its completion and whether the handling is affected. My next one may have to be a build 382ci stroker LS1 (60lbs+ lighter than the LT1).

I will be running 10's this spring on pump gas and alchy injection plus running Nitto DR's.... and look stock from the outside... plus get 20mpg+ on the highway. Just adding a bigger turbo to my current combo and alchy injection. Nothing fancy..... really!

Another converted RX-7 to Boinger status..... EEEEEEk

....... and I have blown away every street car I've ever come across. Not gloating.... just fact. Converted RX-7's make for street sweepers and leave people wondering.

GNX7

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[B]And keeping all your emissions equipment, something most FD owners don't do because it inhibits boost level and response.{/B]

Most any person that is interested in automobile performance does not rank low emissions as number one on their check list, I wouldn't imagine. Restrictive exhaust is more times than not the first thing to go on any vehicle whethere rotary or otherwise. How is aftermarket exhaust rotary specific?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regards to accessories, it's nothing very extraordinary that you still have yours. For someone with a big, heavy (using words I've heard thrown about in threads like this one) V8, it is because it's all extra weight. Not only did Bill keep all his A/C and power steering, but he also has the stock LT1 cast iron exhaust manifolds and catalytic converters, all extra weight. And his car is STILL not much heavier than stock.

His car weighed in at 3,000 lbs. (on a digital truck scale) with an extra 100 lbs. of ballast in the spare tire well. 2,900 lbs. (without the ballast... perfect 50/50 weight balance is overrated as a necessity for performance driving...) isn't much heavier than a stock Touring with manual transmission at 2,862 lbs. An A4 Touring is 2,923 lbs. The R1 is 2,800, an A4 Base model is 2,857, and the manual Base model is 2,789 lbs., according to Mazda. Now that's impressive.

If Bill just dumped the exhaust manifolds, and didn't care about emissions, (like most RX-7 owners) he'd not only make around 40 or more extra horsepower with a good set of headers and no catalytic converters, but he'd also easily drop 35-50 lbs. of curb weight.

It sounds as if though you are saying that most people abandon their stock accessories on their rotaries and that if they do not, they will not produce the performance of a piston counterpart. How is this so?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good gas mileage is relative. When was the last time you averaged 27 mpg for a trip? Most of the FD owners I know of get 13-17 mpg regardless of how heavy their foot is. 19-21 mpg is great highway mileage for a 13B-REW, and many don't even get that much. The rotary engine is horribly fuel inefficient for its displacement. It gulps about as much fuel as a 488 cubic inch Viper V10. (11/21 rated)

I have not, personally, taken my car on a long journey so I can not testify to mile per gallon results on the interstate. However, performance vehicles of any type are not typically built with lots of fuel econmomy in mind. Some manufacturers can claim that their cars get 28 miles per gallon on the interstate, but they arrive at these results by using trickery and manipulation of the engine and transmission (i.e., late model F-Bodies with the "skipshift" feature). Granted rotary engines are not generally fuel efficient for their size, they do get decent gas mileage for what they do. I don't care if I have an 800ci methanol injected Pro-Mod motor that I use as my daily driver; just as long as it gets decent gas mileage. Point is, gas mileage per engine size is just like horsepower per liter; it looks great on paper, but doesn't really get the job done.

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There sure are. And many of them will replace or have replaced engines. Even with engines built by or cars tuned by major tuners. Even well-known tuners can't guarantee you long engine life. PFS. Pettit. Tri-Point. I know of owners who have single turbo or high boost stock twin cars and the majority of them who have made 340-360+ RWHP have replaced at least one engine, some two or more. I know one owner who had an engine go on him at stock boost. It was tuned by Mandeville with a Motec ECU... he's looking into a V8 swap now because he just wants to autocross and not worry about his fragile engine any longer.

Some people just don't want the hassle or the "joys" of rotary ownership any longer, but still like the car, for whatever reason. What skin is it off your (or anyone's) back if they want to put a V8 in the car? If you believe in rotary heritage, you keep the torch burning. Some of us could care less, apparently. We'd rather just drive our cars and not have to consult astrological star charts to find out whether or not they'll still be running at the end of the day.


I don't pretend to oversee the "tenderness" of the rotary engine. It can surely be a nightmare if not properly tuned and manipulated. I, personally, do everything in my power to give the my rotary everything it needs to be a durable and long-living machine (fingers crossed hoping not to jinx myself). You, however, make it sound as though the rotary can not be tamed. In my opinion, it is a combination of too much boost, not enough tuning and improper maintenance of the rotary engine that causes it's failure most of the time. How many performance V8s do you know of that are guaranteed to last for years to come? I can't think of any company that puts a warranty on race engines. How long do you think any engine that is pushed hard is going to last? One last item regarding this...If rotaries are so ungodly unreliable and last for such short periods of time; how did Mazda win the 24hrs. of LeMans?

As far as Max Cooper goes, his website is great and is on my favorites list along with many others. I'm not 100% on what Max's car situation is, but I'd say that an original motor with 73,xxx miles on it that is raced frequently has served him well. I would not ask more of my rotary motor if it was constantly raced. No matter how well Max may have taken care of his car, every motor has its limits and a high performance model only lasts so long when the track is frequented.

My posts are not to start flames or any of the like, but just to give my opinion on the situation at hand just like everyone else. Bottom line, I hope you stay rotary, but your money is yours to waste.

 

Just out of curiousity, how much can these LS1 motors be had for?

Overall Im just curious what a V8 conversion runs when compared to rebuilding a rotary.

As for the whole Rotary vs V8 topic....I say GROW UP to some of the members. Its a free country to each their own! Like the old saying goes.....different strokes for different folks!

 

If I thought that the majority of objections were based on genuine concern for preserving the rarer, more valuable 3rd gen. cars, I could understand that. But considering that this is coming from many people who A) are a second (or third or fourth) owner of a 1993 car, B) in many cases using it for a daily driver, and C) not resisting modifying their cars either, it's absolutely, positively ridiculous.

The point of maintaining the collectible nature of a car is maintaining both it's original state and low mileage. A 1967 Camaro without the right options, with a 350 instead of the 327 it came with, and 267,000 miles on the odometer isn't worth even remotely as much as a numbers-matching 1967 Z28 (one of 602). A 1968 Z28 (7,098 sold) is not nearly as valuable as the '67, and a 1969 Z28 (20,302 sold) is obviously not nearly as rare as either of the other two. The only other thing needed besides a desirable option package and rarity, besides low mileage, is time... only time will tell if the RX-7 becomes a "classic", but as of now, it isn't. My guess is that the Japanese sports cars won't be, for a reason I'm not going to bother to explain because it should be obvious. The missing ingredient is nostalgia.

Now, since most of you can't be concerned on your own behalf, because you're not putting a V8 in your own car, then you must be concerned on my behalf. Or others like me. Right? Don't be. Although my car is one of the last two 1995s imported, and still has only 13,000 miles on the odometer, it was drastically modified long before I'd chosen to lose the rotary powerplant. In fact, with the SRS system removed, no A/C, and no power steering, I doubt it'd appeal to most people, and it certainly won't pass emissions after the V8 is installed, but wouldn't have with the full open exhaust I had on it with the rotary. It's collectability is affected by the fact that it's not original. It's not a pristine example of an untouched RX-7. It's heavily modified. It's been rewired. Equipment that I had no use for has been stripped to drop weight, and long before I thought of putting a V8 in it, if you're wondering.

So if you're not worried on your own behalf, because someone else putting a V8 into an RX-7 doesn't affect the value of your own car, (assuming you're keeping it in fairly original and good shape) and you're not worried on my behalf, then why are you worried about V8 conversions at all??? I'll bet you don't have an answer, and if you do, I'll bet that it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

So let me throw something out for your consideration...



Keep in mind, this is only a computer simulation. My engine will be dyno tuned shortly, and I expect that these numbers are a little conservative because we had incomplete flow data for the heads and intake at the time they were generated.

Do any of you have any idea what this motor is capable of? From the ignorant comments I hear thrown around about pushrod motors and archaic technology, apparently not. Well, here's a car that weighs 300-400 lbs. more and has a "tamer", but larger displacement (422 cid vs. 396 cid) LS1-based pushrod engine...

http://www.z06vette.com/media/mtiz06.mpeg

Any questions on why you'd want an engine like that in your car? I thought not.

Give it a rest. If you're genuinely concerned about conversions, don't convert your own car. All the conversions do is make yours (assuming you maintain it in nearly stock condition and keep the miles to a minimum) more valuable. If you have an 80k+ mile '93 which is modified, on its second engine, or has flaking interior and various other problems, then you're not in a position to be telling anyone what they should be doing with their car. You're not even practicing what you preach. If you want to maintain collectibility, buy a low mile 95 and sit on it. Don't drive it at all. Store it in a climate controlled garage and keep it pristine for the day when (if) it's worth something to someone else.

In the mean time, I'll do what I want with my own car, which is to make it faster, more reliable, and most importantly, to drive the living **** out of it. Don't tell someone else what they can and can't do with their car, it just makes you look like ignorant fools.

 

Thats a nice Typhoon and I seen you up in Toms River last weekend

 

DThat depends on the source. If you buy a new crate LS1 from GM (only available with an automatic transmission ECU) then you'll pay about $6,000 for the engine only. For another $1,000, roughly, you can have a crate LS6 (Z06, 405 horsepower, 400 ft. lbs. torque), though.

If you buy a engine and transmission off eBay (and they're fairly common, but not as common as the LT1/T56 6-speed combo), then you can expect to pay around $2,500-5,000 for your engine and transmission.

But if you buy a wrecked Z28 at auction or wherever, you may pick up everything, including the engine, transmission, wiring harness, and many spare parts for as little as $1,000-1,500. You only need to be able to transport it or have it delivered, a place to store it and a place to get rid of it after you're done pulling the parts you need.

As you can see, the source of your powertrain has a big impact on the overall cost of the conversion. The rest of the conversion is fairly cheap by comparison. $1,700 at Granny's gets you the engine cradle, transmission brace, torque arm and bracket, and a driveline. Exhaust is up to you at this point, but an even-length header kit should be available in the future from Granny's based on my setup.

www.grannysspeedshop.com

If you're just replacing a stock 13B-REW and don't intend to try to increase reliablity and/or make more power, then it's probably cheaper to just drop in another 13B-REW, assuming price is a consideration.

But for around $5,000, assuming you can turn your own wrenches and have the facilities to perform the switch, you can jump to a 300+ horsepower piston engine which will make your car capable of 12-second quarter miles on street tires. The '97-up LS1 Z28 Camaros are capable of high 12s to low 13-second quarters stock, for example, so imagine the same engine in a car which weighs about 700 lbs. less.

You also gain reliablity, gas mileage, a 6th gear, a stronger transmission, and you won't upset the weight of your car, especially with the LS1, which is about 65 lbs. lighter than an LT1, assuming both have full accessories and exhaust manifolds. The LT1 has cast iron exhaust manifolds, coincidentally, so you can save 25-30 lbs. when replacing them with headers.

The kit is a bolt-in and your steering will also be unaffected, unlike the traditional 20B conversions. PFS cuts and modifies the firewall to solve the problem of relocating the steering rack and moves the shifter back in the car... that hardly sounds like a good alternative solution to me.

If you consider that you could easily spend $5,000 on an intake, intercooler, full exhaust, fuel computer, boost controller, and other mods to get to a semi-reliable 320+ RWHP with the rotary, the fact that the LS1-based Z28s more often than not made nearly as much RWHP as their rated flywheel horsepower (320) should be compelling to consider a V8 conversion.

Obviously it's not for everyone. Keep the rotary engine if you want, but it is an option for those fed up with "maintaining" their cars, and it does result in an extremely powerful base platform (a cam and heads could put you at 400+ RWHP for another $1,500 or so) with a vast increase in reliability.

 

I'd like to think that we could preserve the FD's still out there. And I'd like to think that mine was somewhat desired...if it meets all of the given "qualifications" that is...

 

Late 1994 RX7 PEP
Vintage Red/Tan Leather
R1 front and rear spoilers
10,086 original miles
Never been in the rain
Always been garaged

 

So jimlab, lemme get this straight. You currently have a low-mileage '95 FD with an LS1 conversion correct? How far along are you? Reason being that it seems that the LS1 when compared to the LT1 is the way to go. I don't know much about american muscle car motors, but do either of those come in a V6 T flavor? Or are they onl n/a V8? Also which would you recommend? If I remember correctly, the V6 was produced by GN and only comems in a 4-speed auto. I think that was it. Well in any case, you have gotten me more curious about your conversion. Can you provide some specs? Thx jimlab and good luck to you!

 

Depends.

Mine is a 396 cid LTx based loosely on a 1995 Corvette LT1. The only thing it shares with a stock LT1 is the block and optical distributor, though. It'll be dyno tuned shortly, as soon as the intake manifold returns from Hogan's.

 

If you believe in rotary heritage, you keep the torch burning. Some of us could care less, apparently. We'd rather just drive our cars and not have to consult astrological star charts to find out whether or not they'll still be running at the end of the day.

you just gotta love some of the stuff good ol Jim comes up with

threads like this one are great entertainment